Let's say Congress passes a bill to expand the USSC, Biden signs it into law, then somebody sues.

[Goodheart]

The current Supreme Court decides to take the case.

What then?

[PTWB]

1. Nothing then.

The size of the Supreme Court is determined by legislation.

[maxrandb]

20. Exactly

The Constitution limits what the Supreme Court can do. Folks seem to forget that the constitution also puts limits on the power of the judicial branch.

Weighing in on what congress does with the courts is not in their jurisdiction

[Goodheart]

2. Marbury v. Madison determined that the USSC can adjudge the constitutionality of any legislation.

And it's quite possible that these rancid fucks would protect themselves.

[Rstrstx]

9. Who would have standing?

Someone would have to show they have been adversely affected

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. If they are true originalists they should overturn Marbury,

because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review; C.J. Marshall held that they did because somebody had to do it and it might as well be them. But if that power wasn't given the Supreme Court by the Constitution, a true originalist would say they don't have it - thus pretty much putting the Justices out of work.

[Goodheart]

19. So true. But their hypocrisy exceeds their "originalism".

[ProudMNDemocrat]

3. The Constitution does not determine the NUMBER of Justices.

Allowed to make up the Supreme Court.

[EarlG]

4. By the time the case gets to SCOTUS

Wouldn’t the new justices have already been seated, and therefore would also get to rule on the case?

[Goodheart]

7. We can hope. :)

[Goodheart]

5. That I know, but it wouldn't be the first time that justices vote their biases over the Constitution

The Supreme Court decides constitutionality.

[Salviati]

6. Then you start looking into impeaching justices for rank incompetence.

[Under The Radar]

17. Impeach them for false testimony in their confirmation hearings.

The last two, Kavanah and Barrett have nothing perjured themselves. Perhaps the threat of impeachment will force them to resign.

[hlthe2b]

8. It falls to Congress to pass the law that determines the way in which SCOTUS is comprised.

The constitution lays that out. It would be hard to imagine an instance where SCOTUS would have the stated authority to weigh in. I suppose there could be some far out hypotheticals (e.g., restricting eligibility to one race), but these would be limited to areas where other areas of the constitution come into conflict (as in that example).

[Goodheart]

10. Here's the point: the Supreme Court is the last word on constitutionality. AND

After Barrett there are at least 5 biased fuckwads on that Court.

[hlthe2b]

11. And Congress has the ability to impeach and remove. Check Mate

Anything at that level and beyond is civil strife level.

[Goodheart]

12. Takes 67 Senators.

[hlthe2b]

13. Read the rest of my post

[Sherman A1]

14. There is nothing unconstitutional about the expansion of the court

Congress can decide the size of the court.

[Trumpocalypse]

25. FYI

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. Nothing. Congress decides how many justices are on the court.

There have been nine since the Judiciary Act of 1867, and again in 1948. The Constitution doesn't specify a number.

[Goodheart]

16. Already addressed. :)

[MineralMan]

21. Supreme Court Justices are Impeachable.

That is the check Congress has to balance the power of the SCOTUS.

The number of justices is controlled by Congress. That's in the Consitution. So, that's settled.

[Salviati]

22. What if Nancy Pelosi were to murder trump and pence and then pardon herself?

What then?

[patricia92243]

24. She would be a hero??

[Blue_true]

28. ........

Deserving of all the free Jenni’s ice cream that she can possibly eat. She said that Jenni’s is her favorite, coincidentally, it is my favorite also.

[KWR65]

23. To sue the person would have to have standing to sue.

Because the constitution does not set a maximum size of SCOTUS there is no violation of the law.

[RichardRay]

26. Current court would uphold

The size of the court is *not* a Constitutional issue, it’s a matter of simple statute. Even with Barrett aboard. Recent and probable regressive decisions turn largely on the issues of precedent and claims of judicial activism. If a clean bill passed both houses of Congress and the President signed it there wouldn’t be much (or any) wiggle room.

Some folks may call that a naive view, but I’m not that far gone, yet.

[Blue_true]

27. The Supreme Court has no standing on that particular issue.

Expanding the Federal Courts is solely within the domain of the Legislative and Executive branches. Joe can simply point out that the Supreme Court has no constitutional standing on that issue, so he will ignore any decision that it hands out.

[Turin_C3PO]

29. No, they can't.

The reasons why has already been explained.